A Theory

[davywavy]

As usual, due to not having a television, I spent most of last night staring at a dusty corner of the room where one would be if we had one. This is about as intellectually stimulating as your average early-evening TV and so not only do I save money but also it gives me time to think. Mostly about how I should do some hoovering, admittedly, but also about other stuff. Last night, in between theorising about how I'd adapt if I fell into a timewarp back to the C16 (Answer: Badly), and whether Denis Leary's "Shut the f*** up!" school of therapy might have something in it after all, I started wondering about the rise of Western Civilisation and why, after the Middle Eastern and Arab states had the monopoly in technology, medicine, art, science, culture and general civilisation for more than a thousand years after the Roman Empire went pear shaped, it was mostly Northern Europe ended up running the show thereafter. I've heard many theories about this; the Middle Ages was a time rich in social and economic germination, the Printing Press, Constant warfare pushing forward the rate of technological progress, and other ideas too. However, one idea that I've never heard expounded is economic, and so I'm going to outline it now and throw it to the floor for comment.

It is hardly like the Middle Eastern States started from a bad point relative to Europe; they were aggressively warlike, monotheistic, technologically advanced, cultured & civilised. there were of course obvious cultural difference, but why was it that post-renaissance Europe, after reaching effective equivalence to Arabia, suddenly leapt ahead when Arabia stayed fairly static?
Of course, there is no one answer, but I suggest that Sharia (Islamic) law was a contributing factor; specifically, the part that forbids the payment of interest on loans. According to Sharia, money is a medium of exchange and nothing more, and those who use capital to generate more capital without indulging in 'proper' work are not contributing to society - as such the charging of interest is banned. In Europe, this situation was almost entirely opposite, especially amongst the Jewish Community who are actively banned from many forms of work resulting in moneylending being pretty much the only profession they could take up.
In turn this led to Banking, which in turn led to capital speculation in the great merchant cities like London and Amsterdam.

The theory here is that by lending money to uncertain ventures at interest in the hope of turning a profit on that money - venture capital, if you will - Western European expansion was funded in a way that Arabian expansion could not be. Whilst buying and selling at a profit was the core of trade, the uses that profit could be legally put to was different in both cultures - in one, restrictive, in the other not so. Thus once a certain critical mass of capital was available in society, a society that allowed banking and capital speculation would quickly increase the number of funded ventures whereas one which did not allow such freedom of use would not see an equivalent growth.

Thus in short; a culture which forbade the lending of money at interest would have a lesser amount of capital speculation and in turn would have fewer funded ventures, which restricted the economic growth of that culture, allowing people who were only a few hundred years before mud-hut dwelling peasants to seize the initiative and grab the spoils that could well have gone to someone else.

I'm not sure I'm right. It's certainly a persuasive argument, but I'm aware that it's impossible to chart cultural change and expansion on the basis of one factor. Some people will see me as trying to say that history and cultures were 'right' and 'wrong', which I'm also not. I'm just curious as to why a civilisation which seemed, on the face of it, to have everything going for it might have been leapfrogged so comprehensively in such a short period of time by people who were their inferiors - and this seems to be to have potentially been a contributing factor.

Comments welcomed.

Comments

[reddragdiva]

Did this start the Renaissance?

I've also seen the theory that the Black Death helped kickstart the Renaissance. Not in having killed a random third of the population, but in having shaken up the remaining population so thoroughly they proceeded to work creatively rather than be glassy-eyed drones. c.f. Japan after losing WWII.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Not really; the Renaissance was a cultural thing kickstared by access to Greco-Roam cultural ideas preserved in the Arab States through the Italian merchant cities, giving them ideas that had been lost to Europe in the Middle Ages.

It's all one great tapestry; no one explaination. I'm just being curious about his one today :)

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

Actually, that is a strong argument. The growth of trade was also arguably the key factor in the shift from feudal rule, since tariffs act as a barrier which the growing merchant powers wanted to undermine (at least when it was in their favour).

Scarily, you're nroadly outlining a Marxist analysis of the economic base at the time and it's effect on the state 'superstructure'.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As I was generally theorising, I was trying to keep politico-economic nonsense out of it but as you've raised it, I would instead argue that it indicates that allowing appreciation through capital investment results in societies becoming more open, wealthier and happier for the greater part of their population; something which, it has to be said, no Marxist state has ever succeeded in doing.

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

Ah, but I'm afraid you've misread my point (though to be fair, that's because I've mentioned a 'tag').

The marxist analysis actually reaches the same conclusion about improvements in wealth and the breakdown of many barriers (social and political). It just disagrees that this is the end point.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Oh, you know how it is - red rags and bulls and all of that...

[weejock.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea, I'm sold. Though it will have to be on favourable financial terms.

Looking at Japan's history could add weight to your arguement, as a culture that went from the way of the warrior to the way of the bureaucrat. From a closed island nation where money meant nothing to high tech business producing err... gadets and high tech toilets.

[eruditorum.livejournal.com]

So far as I was aware the Japanese had banking systems with interest well before the Meiji restoration (when the Emperor took power back from the Shogun). This was one reason why bankers and merchants were treated as less than peasants. And like anywhere Shogun et al were good at welching on their loans...

[omentide.livejournal.com]

There's a couple more factors. First, pre (and I can't remember the precise date) the Church did not allow the lending of money for interest. So the only people (in Europe) who were allowed to do that were the jews. Taxing them for the privilege was, of course, permitted.

In early 1492 a recently united Spain completed the Reconquista (they chucked the Moors out of their last stronghold in Grenada). Grenada was immensely wealthy (a good thing, as defeating the Moors cost a great deal of money).

In the same year, the jews were expelled from Spain. Well, they were allowed to stay, but only if they converted to Christianity (at which point the Church forbad them to lend money at interest). A lot of them ended up in Italy. Which, arguably, helped to drive the Renaissance. Yes, it was the rediscovery (and re-transalation) of Classical texts which was the fundamental driver, but the interpretation of those texts got pretty mixed up with jewish Mysticism. This was the birth of the so-called Christian Qabala.

Oh, meanwhile, it was the 'age of discovery'. New trade routes were discovered that enabled the Venetians (in particular, though other Italian states were involved) to get to where the spices were grown, thus undercutting the prices previously charged by Middle Eastern merchants who had transported them overland. Oh, and this chap called Christopher Columbus buggered off to find Spain a new trade route and accidentally discovered America. There was a lot of gold there. This also helped to drive the economic growth of Europe.

Please, someone stop me!

I don't think any of this was actually influenced by Angels, Demons or Vampires (though I have written a great number of role playing scenarios implying that this was the case).

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

All true; I knew that the church considered Usury to be a sin (Neither a borrower nor a lender be), but I didn't know it was outlawed in Europe too.

[omentide.livejournal.com]

And, for my next trick...

I always wanted to write a roleplaying scenario illustrating the connections between Hermeticism and the History of Science.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I actually have an idea vaguely along those lines myself, set in about 1600...maybe running next summer.

[omentide.livejournal.com]

Cool.

Free feel to tap me up for some research. In case you failed to notice, it's a bit of an obsession of mine, and I have some very interesting books (and a few semi-interesting urls)

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

On a complete aside, this might be of interest to you.

www.bowlingfortruth.com

I've read this argument somewhere before...

[applez.livejournal.com]

...and it is a good one.

However, the key fulcrum wasn't so much Jewish banklenders, but the reversal of policy by the Church on usuary, and providing their own firm financial base via the Knights Templar, and later Hospitallers...they were the first Christian banking houses with final assurance authority (the FDIC of their day).

In real terms, it wasn't so much the mechanism of capitalisation, but it's effect ... which was to better liquify European wealth tied to the land and land rights. This liquification became particularly virulent with the Crusades, eastern trade, and the subsequent rise of the merchant classes. In an odd way, this liquification gave ever-vaster estates to the Church, which enlarged it's loaning base, and firmer value for speculators.

The Caliphs, by comparision, maintained a traditional feudal tax and favouratism policy - no loan system that I know of.

The Plague, was a spur for mechanistic innovation in the main, I think.

But I need to think longer on Muslim financial institutions though

[applez.livejournal.com]

There was considerable financial exchange underway in the name of charity, and was historically some basis for raising armies and such. Honestly, I would need to read more before judging whether this was institutionally weaker to a capitalist/monetarist policy or no.

Re: But I need to think longer on Muslim financial institutions though

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I know 0 about muslim financial institutions other than what I've read about Sharia & lending as it applies to mortgages. I was just theorising idly.

Re: But I need to think longer on Muslim financial institutions though

[applez.livejournal.com]

What I'm dealing with here is that the mosques acted as financial community centres - not just for charity, but for goods and services as well.

Moreover, there was considerable mercantalism throughout the Caliphates, and was a significant source of revenue for the authorities. Consider too that much of this trade was monetised, which was significantly a step ahead of European feudal taxation of trade ... measured in ducks, goats, and heads of cattle - more than gold, silver, or salt.